In addition to securing the wheels of a skateboard to its deck, the skateboard truck assembly plays an important role in the overall maneuverability of the skateboard, including, in particular, the rider's ability to control the direction of the board's travel. Several types of skateboard trucks exist and its ultimate design is subject to variation. However, in general, most truck assemblies tend to operate on the basic principle that a change in the rider's position on the board (e.g., through a shift in weight or “pumping” one's legs) can be at least partially translated to a change in the direction of the skateboard's motion. However, many conventional truck assemblies exhibit a variety of drawbacks that can adversely impact the operation of the skateboard in terms of rider flexibility, performance, and safety. For example, conventional trucks place an extreme amount of stress on the reverse kingpin, which can oftentimes result in failed or broken parts. This creates a hazardous situation for the rider. In addition, many traditionally-designed skateboard trucks geometrically limit the skateboard's turning ability, which is the method used to slow the skateboard down when riding on uneven or sloped (e. g., mountainous) terrain. To increase turning ability users will often loosen their trucks or use softer bushings, which consequently reduces stability, especially at high speeds. This can be extremely dangerous, as it can cause “speed wobble,” which can result in severe injury or even death. Also, many known conventional reverse kingpin truck designs are not ideal because the end of the kingpin, nut and or washer protrude beyond the hanger and will interfere if a rider tries to grind the hanger on an object such as a rail or curb. Thus, a need exists for a robust, yet versatile, skateboard truck design that maximizes the turning ability, grinding ability and performance of the skateboard while retaining a suitable degree of stability and enhancing both rider control and safety.
This background information is provided to reveal information believed by the applicant to be of possible relevance to the present invention. No admission is necessarily intended, nor should be construed, that any of the preceding information constitutes prior art against the present invention.